Bill, you say levelling the playing field is futile. Is this just in the case of gyros? It seems to me that otherwise the levelling method we have is OK but of course not perfect.

Obviously I don’t have the benefit of your experience so could you elaborate a little please? And when you say separate out the results at the end that is when all gyro equipped models are end up judged against each other alone and not with the “others”?

David, the gyro models scored best flights at the Nats, as they are bound to. If levelling the field, which people bandy about, means a penalty to make things fair, where would you set it? And would you increase it in windy weather?Yes, fly all together with same judges but have two results lists - gyro and FF.

They're very different things, Ralph, as Bill points out. I'm not sure that a floating rudder is a 'thing' at all, come to that. If models with added (overscale) dihedral belong in the same class as ones with scale dihedral then I would have thought that that same class could accommodate a floating rudder or two.

Quote

Just a thought, isn't it called Free Flight Scale? ie free flight with no artificial means of control?

This seems to me another wheredjadrawtheline problem. All our models obey the laws of physics. A trim tab fits in the field of fluid mechanics; a gyro fits in the field of er. . .gyroscopical whizzy stuff. None of these aids can be affected by the user once the model is launched.

I was aware (via HPA) of what Steve Glass has achieved, but it didn't sink in until - as I understand it - I read that his Typhoon came down out of control because it isn't trimmed. I'm not sure that it can be right to say that it's not stable: I would guess it has a decent amount of natural stability (if trimmed), from general experience and having built a much smaller Tempest with pendulum ailerons. However, the apparent fact that these gyros are good enough not only to amplify the model's natural stability but to substitute for fixed trim as well is extraordinary. Scary. My entry for next year's FF Nats is to be a 1/8th scale model of my comfy chair. All documentation will show it to be extremely scale and I expect it to fly well. I can verify that the prototype has flown at least once (those removals men, tsk tsk). As soon as I can work out how to imitate the fancy curlicued gold thread in the damask fabric I'll be off.

Okay, satire aside, and adding what others have said about GPS, although "none of these aids can be affected. . ."etc, this really needs thinking about. Can it reely be called free flight? When I launch a model I always think I'm setting it free. The pendulum-aileron models I've made can't be counted upon to fly a particular pattern at all - they normally turn left, my preference, but can opt for right instead. If I knew, even without controlling it via radio, laser, mind-waves or what have you, that a model is going to climb over there, circle round, do a roll, flash its landing lights and come right back to a stabilised approach and landing despite the gusty wind, I don't see how that can be "free".

Maybe a solution for the time being, until all these hordes of people attracted by gyros materialise, is to have them in the FF class but just separate out the results at the end. Same number of judges needed.

In practical terms, why is this better than just having the gyro flyers in a separate class tacked on to the end (or beginning) of each ordinary free flight round?

Maybe a solution for the time being, until all these hordes of people attracted by gyros materialise, is to have them in the FF class but just separate out the results at the end. Same number of judges needed.

In practical terms, why is this better than just having the gyro flyers in a separate class tacked on to the end (or beginning) of each ordinary free flight round?

It isn´t but it just looks less silly than having a contest for two people, which you can´t have anyway

I read that his Typhoon came down out of control because it isn't trimmed. I'm not sure that it can be right to say that it's not stable: I would guess it has a decent amount of natural stability (if trimmed), from general experience and having built a much smaller Tempest with pendulum ailerons.

It came down because the battery failed the gyro and the model then realised that it hadn´t been trimmed. That´s the point ´you can bypass the entire trimming process that people like Andrew Hewitt (Eindekker/zero dihedral/minuscule tail surfaces) have to apply

Quite, Bill, I understand that. I watched the end of the video clip (Squirrelnet? Sorry - forgotten already) of Steve Glass' Typhoon frame by frame and knew that something was up: I guessed that pitch was involved and that when the battery failed it left the ailerons and elevators in extreme positions. That's because the idea that the model wasn't trimmed never entered my mind. There's no way a trimmed model could have departed so abruptly with neutral controls. Hence my admiration for what Steve Glass has shown to be possible but my disquiet at the implications (flying comfy chairs, forget the Eindekkers). It looked to me as if the Typhoon survived the 'arrival' but had it been trimmed I expect it would just have lazily rolled off into a wingtip-first landing.

Thank you Bill - now I understand - I honestly had not considered gyros in FF scale models were permitted because I had not thought about it. And it seemed a step too far for free flight. But now it is becoming clear. Yes a can of worms and all that. The single contest with separate results seems the most practical solution presently.

Stephen, Mr Han Cheng would surely be considered a professional? And his chip would not belong to him - but the Company for which he worked.

You will have to register your armchair with the CAA remember. Bound to be over 250gms with the gold thread?

However your serious comment about explaining the dilemma is masterly. All pretty clear now. But just one thing. So you trim your gyro equipped model to fly as best it can and use the gyro to further help sustain a stable flight. If the battery goes will it not override the "trim" settings and possibly set them in extreme positions - like I recall happening with radio failure. Yes, this is all pretty admirable and I envy Steve's ability. It will I am sure open up a new field but I am not convinced it is truly free flight in the true sense. But then no one it seems (sensibly) is claiming it is are they?

I think the radio control arena is a different matter - not even sure gyros should be permitted even with penalties - but of course that is likely to reduce entires?

As you say David that is a classic failure mode for radio and does not indicate the model is not trimmed. In the case of the Typhoon the small tail would probably mean it was marginal at best the shallow dihedral would add to the lack of stability. To me watching the Chipmunk flight was magic with a good sit of the aircraft in the air no excessive dihedral and a realistic flight speed. Surely ignoring these developments is not going to be productive as they are now a fact of life and a workable solution should be found. If a rule does not work then change it and improve it. The danger of a new class is that it dilutes already low numbers. The times are a changing! I can see radio DT becoming the norm for safety reasons in FF electric and even in power to save a model. We still have the builder of the model rule and that should never change.Ricky

What is the "builder of the model rule" that should never change? Also, could somebody please explain how (with pics please ), how theses "gyros" etc. work, and how much they cost and how much weight they add? I also thought these flights were Free Flight rubber powered ...

LASTWOODSMANRichard

Logged

OH, I HAVE SLIPPED THE SURLY BONDS OF EARTH ... UP, UP THE LONG DELIRIOUS BURNING BLUE ... SUNWARD I'VE CLIMBED AND JOINED THE TUMBLING MIRTH OF SUN-SPLIT CLOUDS ...

Is application of the 'Builder of the Model Rule' an answer to 'new technology' issues?

Doesn't the entrant still have to provide a written declaration confirming they have built the model themselves, and identifying any component used that has been provided by others?

If 'gyro' control has been achieved using a lead pendulum and bent piano wire, by the builder alone, then allow it. If the builder has achieved the same result by clever construction from individual electronic components, then surely that is a modern equivalent of the old and established wire pendulum.....but if you bought the device take the penalty.

If electric motor control has been made by the modeller from individual components (think Peterboro timer, or Tomy timer and contacts perhaps) allow it. If a bought in timer (say Atomic Workshop or K&P) take the penalty.

If you carved the pilot yourself score the points....If you install a pilot beautifully modelled by Dave Hanks instead, take a penalty.

Personally I think the same principal should apply to 3D printed parts and printed tissue. If the modeller actually built the 3D or 2D cad file, themselves, then they should score the points, but if bought in from others then take a penalty. I am not sure what the general consensus was on printed parts or covering?

I guess, if the principal were acceptable, the task for rule makers would be to identify the permissible boundaries, and appropriate penalties when exceeded?

I think the builder of model rule has always been there dating back to the days when commercially bought models were not available, it was always an aeromodelling competition to biuld and fly model aircraft

I think you are missing the point with the gyro . Its not a matter of wether you made it yourself its more to do with how it operates.

The previous stabilisation devices and cut off timers all aid the flying of a trimmed model. The gyro effective flies the plane for you in a similar manner to fitting a tiny pilot. The model does not need to be trimmed in the conventional sense as the gyro will fly round any issues for you. Clearly the implications of this in a discipline that is very much focused on the aerodynamic trimming of model is huge

I think you are missing the point with the gyro . Its not a matter of wether you made it yourself its more to do with how it operates.

The previous stabilisation devices and cut off timers all aid the flying of a trimmed model. The gyro effective flies the plane for you in a similar manner to fitting a tiny pilot. The model does not need to be trimmed in the conventional sense as the gyro will fly round any issues for you. Clearly the implications of this in a discipline that is very much focused on the aerodynamic trimming of model is huge

I suspect there is still trimming to do otherwise the model would set off in a straight line until the motive power ran out. I think Steve could let us into his approach.

Chris H I think you have summed it up very well, as this allows the modeller to make the call as what approach they take knowing the penalty. It will encourage experimentation and trying new types.Ricky

Well that's the fascinating question, Ralph. A gyro maintains a fixed position relative to space; a pendulum seeks the centre of the Earth (in one axis only). If I have a pendulum aileron setup I have to trim the model physically in roll by introducing aileron bias. With a gyro as the master, connected to the control surfaces via electronics as well as mechanics, perhaps you can simply twiddle a potentiometer. "I commmand the gyro, fixed to the Universe, to provide a rate 2 turn to the left", something like that. I'm still amazed to think that such a gyro system can overcome the need for basic trimming. However, Steve's Typhoon is big. Smaller models have lower Reynold's Numbers, making them inherently less stable, so a smaller 'Gyro Typhoon' would need to be trimmed in the classical manner, otherwise to obtain static stability the gyro might have to induce such a large elevator (for example) correction that a)the tailplane would stall or b)there would be no physical travel left to manage dynamic excursions from level pitch.

Perhaps if FF Scale was defined then we would not be discussing the issue. But rightly or wrongly we have opted to permit gyros, among other things to encourage progress. One can always argue that this or that device is or is not permitted or whatever reason. So if we are to be lenient then Bil’s suggestion seems the answer.

I thought I knew but am now not sure. What is the difference between an electronic pendulum and a gyro.

A clubmate has a small r/c P51 with gyro assist. When the Tx and Rx is switched on with the model held in the hand, any movement of hand or body (even just walking) causes the servos to react - trying to keep the model on the heading from the Tx controls. The servos are "twitching" virtually all the time. To someone with a normal r/c model this would indicate something wrong with the Rx or servos and be quite worrying.

I assume that Steve has something to simulate a Tx/Rx combo to provide the servo/s with the appropriate signals so the gyro can interpret any movement of the model and provide a correcting signal. I would just put a Rx in the model and fly it with radio control as I believe that Steve can do. The little gizmos that allow brushless motors to run through an ESC in FF models work in a similar way I suppose.

Jon, You have raised the very point I have been struggling with. My thought is that a 3 axis stabilization is an autopilot, but single axis is stabilization, because the model still has to trimmed to fly in a stable manner for the other axis. Two axis is debatable! The gyro takes its correction signal from the level of disturbance from its set reference plane. Ricky

There are a lot of assumptions going on here and a lot of thoughts from people who don't compete too, some of which are wide of the mark, some of which are accurate.

Just to add my take on the gyro subject - I am not sure that Steve Glass' Typhoon had a battery failure - he didn't confirm it was the battery when asked.

Consider that when it was flying with the power on, that the gyro (which I understand is on two axes aileron and elevator) is keeping all in a steady state and cruising around in circles nicely.When the motive power stops (not battery failure) then the model starts to decend and no matter how small, the wing / fuselage takes on a lower angle of attack and the gyro feeds in up elevator. What happens next with the slower speed is the gyro keeps feeding in up elevator as the model slows further and dives more until it departs in a stall to a flick into a spiral dive. So more trimming / setting up work needed on the pitch axis with the gyro to stop that happening.

Allowing gyros is not as simple as many think (there are many different types and capabilities) and still requires a good deal of understanding and a different approach to FF trimming.

If it means that some people don't like it and are vocal against the new tech, then that is the way of the world. If it means that some currently pure RC flyers like the idea and we get 5, 10 or more new competitors in FF scale than that can only be a good thing. A number of people have had a word with me about starting in FF scale who have never been anywhere near FF except when they were kids with KK rubber scale models 30/40 years ago

As said before on many occasions, if you want your views to be discussed over whether gyros should be allowed, allowed with penalties, or not allowed at all, then email Andy Sephton and those views will be discussed in STC meetings, where the merits and demerits will be compared and new rules may or may not be created and adopted for the new rule book each year.

If you don't like the decision coming out of the STC, then volunteer to sit on the committee and give up some 4 or 5 Saturdays each year and make your opinions count because you will now have a vote at that meeting.By all means keep debating it on here, but it won't get heard at STC - where the decisions are made on behalf of all competitors and for the best way forward and to good of the sport.